cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/11683421
The EU has quietly imposed cash limits EU-wide:
- €3k limit on anonymous payments
- €10k limit regardless (link which also lists state-by-state limits).
From the jailed¹ article:
An EU-wide maximum limit of €10 000 is set for cash payments, which will make it harder for criminals to launder dirty money.
It will also strip dignity and autonomy from non-criminal adults, you nannying assholes!
In addition, according to the provisional agreement, obliged entities will need to identify and verify the identity of a person who carries out an occasional transaction in cash between €3 000 and €10 000.
The hunt for “money launderers” and “terrorists” is not likely meaningfully facilitated by depriving the privacy of people involved in small €3k transactions. It’s a bogus excuse for empowering a police surveillance state. It’s a shame how quietly this apparently happened. No news or chatter about it.
¹ the EU’s own website is an exclusive privacy-abusing Cloudflare site inaccessible several demographics of people. Sad that we need to rely on the website of a US library to get equitable access to official EU communication.
update
The Pirate party’s reaction is spot on. They also point out that cryptocurrency is affected. Which in the end amounts to forced banking.
#warOnCash
Tax evasion and money laundering rob all of us. I don't like that we have to do this but it's a necessary change.
This is stupid, money in that range is irrelevant on a national scale. The real laundering and robbing happens in the millions and billions and is committed by people in suits gifting each other yachts and real estate.
Ultra rich don't evade taxes, they avoid them via good accountants legally. What this is supposed to prevent is small/medium tax fraud which really adds up.
But as @somguy69 said, money laundering is not committed by the middle and lower classes. Using anti-terror tools against someone who neglects to declare some small income. It’s absurdly disproportionate and takes our option to be free from banks away. It’s a terrible trade-off.
3k EUR is not small income.
I'm not even sure what we're trading it for. Illusion of privacy from your own state?
Considering $us 1 has about the same spending power as €1, €3k covers room and board in Utrecht (the cheapest indexed city in NL) for about ~11 days:
https://aoprals.state.gov/web920/per_diem_action.asp?MenuHide=1&CountryCode=1101
And min wage is set at €2150 (take-home pay, so likely ~€3k gross). So yes, ⅓ of a month.
It’s a show stopper for me. I will not work for that amount because it’s a small fraction of my market value. That nixes Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Spain. I’m fine with tax declarations so the real limit for me working in the EU is the €10k limit. But that’s still a pay cut. And it limits me to Germany and perhaps a few other countries. So working full-time in Europe has essentially become a non-starter for me.
Reread the thread. Privacy from Google, Microsoft, Apple, Cloudflare, Paypal/Zittle, JP Morgan Chase, Visa, Mastercard, the telecoms, countless payment processors, as well as unwarranted gov. snooping.
And that just touches on the confidentiality aspect of privacy. Yet privacy is actually more about control.
Can you rent a flat anonymously? Doesn't that have to be reported for tax anyway? All of examples I'm seeing here are flat out tax fraud heaven.
I would hope so, as far as the EU goes. If the EU were to force leases to be registered and to name all occupants, it would be absurdly over interventionalist and it would be a blatant privacy abuse. Belgium requires leases to be registered but then the registration process makes email address a required field. So if someone does not have an email address registration is not possible (despite registration being a legal obligation -- would be interesting to see what happens in court when someone is prosecuted for not registering due to not having an email address). Apart from that, there is no rule that all occupants must be listed on the lease. And cash rent payments are legal.
It would also be surprisingly extreme if hotels were forced to collect identities of their guests. They likely do it anyway to know who to go after for damages, but a gov mandate would be excessively interventionalist.
Ok, this is pointless, you're advocating for tax fraud outright.
I’m not sure how you get such a perversely twisted idea from my thesis. Nothing in that comment you replied to advocates tax fraud. People should have the freedom to boycott banks. They should have the right to boycott Google and Microsoft. Participation in the private sector marketplace should be optional. Privacy rights enshrined in human rights law are an important component to my thesis. Your contempt for human rights is shameful. To be clear--
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12:
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 17:
(emphasis mine)
Wow, you found a universal tax fraud loophole that nobody did before - taxation is illegal invasion of privacy lol. You should consider career in accounting.
It’s bizarre how you think anonymous leases and hotel stays imply tax fraud. It’s that non-sequitur malfunction of logic that has led to the privacy abuses we face.
I have not seen once in my life a hotel that does anonymous leases. Because you could fuck up their shit and run. Where do you come up with those examples?
How can I meaningfully answer such a vague question? What example are you referring to? There are no “examples” of anything in the post you replied to.
I don't know what those numbers are supposed to be used for, but they are certainly not to be used for estimating cost of living.
Per diem is an estimate of room and board, so indeed it’s a city-specific measure of cost of living. The minimum wage figures are a nationwide amount that doesn’t deviate too far from cost of living (targets a “living wage”), but it obviously has the bluntness of being fixed nationwide. But as you can see from the per diem variations, there are vast differences from one city to the next. The min wage is likely above living wages in Utrecht, but below living wages in Amsterdam.
My point is that my salary is below the per diem of where I live yet I'm anything but poor. I would estimate the value to be half what's announced on that page.
Do not forget "art".
Should go after them too, no?
10k maximum means everything above 10k. 1 million is still above 10k.
Yes, it doesn't affect asset donations, but just because it's not a theft-ending law doesn't make it useless.
While the limits are way too low imo, i agree that there is a need of sorts. Whoever i think any legislation like this should cone AFTER we have taken care of the major offenders. The order is just wrong.
It like allocating police resources to illegal lemonade stands while there is a mass murder running through town, killing someone every hour.
No it's not. The real money laundering is happening in the area of billions and we lose billions by companies not paying taxes. The normal people here don't matter at all. 3k is tiny, that's less than my gaming PC costs if I want to sell it used. Wtf
Ultra rich should be taxed up to their tits or ears but let's not kid ourselves that 3k/10k EUR limit is going to affect anyone poor.
10k is the price of a used car so it affects almost everyone. And with inflation the limit will go even lower over time. Its a bad plan all around, and gives more power to states which are already too powerful.
Have you ever bought a car? You can't do it anonymously, you have to register it.
Criminals make most of their money from drugs. And most law enforcement resources are allocated to fighting drugs.
It's our failed "war on drugs" that is creating a rich criminal class in society.
Legalize and regulate drugs, alcohol, prostitution and gambling and then there won't be a huge criminal economy. What remains can then be easily squashed by law enforcement.
I wasn't talking about war on drugs, those should be decriminalized anyway.
What I keep seeing in my personal life is car repair shops, medical professionals and other businesses that usually charge a lot and then take cash only. It's obvious why.
Tax evasion is a thing, yes. But it's also relatively easy to prosecute by auditing.
Money laundering requires a source of illegal money. And, what you may not realize, money laundering schemes always pay tax. They actually overpay taxes by faking non-existent economic activity in order to make the illegal money legal.
Take away the source of illegal money and money laundering disappears.
How are you going to audit cashless businesses that invoice one price and take another and how much is that going to cost? We're talking about likely widespread issue that needs solving systemically, not with adhoc actions.
Dude, tax collection has been optimized for hundreds of years before we even had electronic money.
They even got Al Capone.
Money laundering is the opposite of tax evasion. If you don't understand that those two things are not the same, then I can't really help you.
All of you guys focus on some billionaires, mafia bosses etc but we're talking about 3k/10k EUR limits.
I'm asking how do you audit cash-heavy businesses doing petty tax fraud cost effectively?
You weren't asking anything. You were just lumping things together.
To audit tax fraud, just audit the books. If a restaurant is full on a Friday night, but the books show few sales, then you have your evidence.
If someone buys a new car and has a nice house, but claims their business is hardly making profit, then the tax authority can demand they explain the source of their income.
Again, this is how they got Al Capone 100 years ago.
Money laundering is much more difficult and it's the opposite. Because the laundering restaurant can just write in the books that they sold 100 more cocktails on a Friday night, paid by cash. And they also pay the required tax on it.
To combat money laundering, you need to audit the customers of the establishment, which is why they want to reduce the usage of cash.
But instead of turning the EU into East Germany, we should just stop criminalizing vices and regulate that, which is the main source of dirty money.
Seems like your solution costs more than it brings to the budget and all that you're gaining is false sense of privacy.
I am not proposing any new solution. Tax collection agencies across the European Union already audit businesses and it's a revenue generating activity.
So you're fine with tax collection being ineffective, got it. All taxation is theft and so on, right?
Dude, I have talked to AI bots that are more intelligent than this
Tax collection is very effective. Extremely effective, even.
That's my whole point.
Belgium solved that last year by simply forcing all traders to accept electronic payment (in addition to cash). They cannot refuse electronic payment.
It's an EU-wide thing now I think. Our car shops just say they can lower the price significantly if you pay by cash. Others just play dumb.
Rightfully so. When telecoms and train travel vendors give discounts for paying online, it rewards consumers who are on the unethical side of the #warOnCash and rewards discrimination against the unbanked and punishes the poor. The elitist idea of discounting electronic payment harms everyone by promoting Bill Gates’ war on cash. Visa’s $10k incentive for merchants to refuse cash rewards the practice of excluding people and attacks privacy and autonomy. Whereas cash discounts encourage consumers to carry cash and to use it to support a system of inclusion, which is needed to show merchants on the edge of introducing exclusion that cash acceptance is important.
I think you're on some ideological crusade, I'm more into pragmatism.
Prices should be the same regardless of the payment method, but let's not pretend the "discount" you get when paying cash is anything but tax evasion.
“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”
― Desmond Tutu
Let’s not pretend Visa, Mastercard, and American Express give free service to merchants. Let’s not pretend the costs of loss of business when a card fails, or the equipment malfunctions is zero. Let’s not pretend there is zero value in having cash to facilitate situations where wait staff shares their tips with the kitchen staff¹, or that having petty cash on-hand is not useful for small incidental costs. Let’s not pretend the transactions a company does is not sensitive information and that data brokers selling that info to competitors is free of detriment.
¹ I recently asked a restaurant for cash back. They said in principle they are willing to give cash back, but so few customers pay in cash that they often cannot share their (presumably electronic) tips with the kitchen staff. Their problem (as I see it) is they gave no incentive to pay with cash.
Cash has its benefits, I never said otherwise. But said benefits are for the individuals. Shops use it as an excuse to avoid paying taxes, and pricing differently is not noble at all.
You mention tipping, well good thing this is Europe then, where many places already did away with this stupid custom. Covid relief packages for restaurants in France were based on declared income. I'll let you guess why some owners complained they did not get enough help during the crisis.
I don't like that we have not found (or even looked for) a compromise in terms of privacy and safety between cash and cards, but I won't feel bad for hypocrites profiting from my tax money without giving their own share. 99% of people in Europe have never even had 3k worth of cash in their hands anyway
Nonsense. The benefits are for both sides of the transaction. I just listed several benefits to merchants - how did you miss that? If cash did not benefit merchants, there would be no reason for cash acceptance.
Not necessarily.
Of course it’s noble. They are proactively supporting the ethical side of the #warOnCash. The few businesses that offer cash discounts are practicing the ethical duty to protect cash by encouraging people to carry it and use it.
The example I gave of the waitress refusing cash back (because she needed it to tip the kitchen staff) was in Netherlands.
Tipping is actually increasing in Europe and it’s because of electronic payment that it’s happening. The payment terminals are coded to prompt payers to choose how much they would like to tip. So in Netherlands, you have a wait staff standing there in front of customers as they face this prompt. And the prompt is coded for US norms (10%, 15%, 20%). Customers feel awkward about refusing that prompt in front of the waitstaff, and of course the high percentages effectively mislead customers in Europe about local customs. In fact I have never seen a payment terminal in European restaurants that is coded for local norms (tipping €1 or €2 flat). They are always coded for US customs when they support tipping at all.
This swindle is not accidental. European restaurant owners are installing these kinds of terminals deliberately to stimulate high tip revenue so they have less pressure to pay high wages. The swindle would not be possible in a cash-based scenario.
I’m not sure I’ve seen a payment terminal where you can freely enter a tip amount. But certainly with cash, payers have full control and autonomy.
That’s fair enough. What’s your complaint?
You should feel guilty for the bogus assumption that everyone is a tax evader and then advocating for collateral damage to the people who are helping the fight against forced banking.
This is about the EU. Prostitution is not criminalized.
Money laundering has the opposite effect that you think it does. Money laundering takes untaxed money and puts it through a process that results in tax revenue. The /absence/ of money laundering “robs” us, if it’s tax revenue that you have in mind.
The lazy AML enforcement style is what robs us, and it robs us of privacy, dignity, and autonomy. If they would enforce AML the same way they enforce other crimes (getting proper search warrants that respects our human rights when suspicion warrants it), AML would be enforced without collateral damage to law-abiding people.
Enforcement of tax evasion would be a petty cause to use as an excuse to force every single person in the land to patronize commercial banks. Like subjecting everyone to facial recognition and tracking just to make the work of a few shoplifters harder. It’s disproportionate and undermines our freedom because law enforcement wants their job to be easy. We lose our autonomy and options so law enforcement can have a bit of occupational convenience. Which amounts to nothing because criminals will simply tweak their operation.
Our boycott rights have been lost
We have just lost the option to boycott banks in Europe. Banks that:
We should have a right to decide whether to enter the private marketplace and patronise a business, especially a shitty industry like banking. We should have a right to boycott bad businesses. In the EU, that right has been lost. It’s a profoundly foolish trade to give up boycott rights so tax evaders have to work a little harder to dodge the auditors. Losing our right to boycott then has the consequence that banks can become even more enshitified because they need not earn our business. The banks can piss on us all they want if we are forced to lick their boots.
It’s a perversely stupid compromise of agency over our own lawful lives in order to make law enforcement a little more convenient and crime a little more inconvenient. To slightly give the cats a bit more advantage in the cat-mouse game at the cost of our liberties.
There are some parallels to the profoundly naive efforts to ban encryption or impose master keys. They want to make it slightly less convenient for criminals at the cost of our autonomy, dignity, and privacy. And they keep trying to push this shit. It’s not enough to push back once because it’s relentless. We must keep pushing back.
Well, most of the EU citizens (most of Western Europeans in fact) had that weird idea that they'd found the third way, where everything is regulated and a honest man has nothing to hide, but somehow this won't be abused by mafia and big businesses and such.
No, they obviously want those autonomy, dignity and privacy themselves. This is the goal.
It's a very slow and steady mafia takeover.